A relatively unpopular but somewhat controversial move which has received the attention of the international community as well as praise among hardline advocates of immigration, the United States has deported eight men to the war-torn country of South Sudan, none of them South Sudanese, after a complicated case of legal wrangling not only encompassing various federal courts but also ending with a dramatic decision in the United States Supreme Court.

The eight men, who hail out of Cuba, Mexico, Laos, Myanmar, Sudan, and Vietnam have been found gu!lty of serious crimes in the U.S, such as murder, sexual assault, and crimes where children are involved.

Once they had served their sentences, the U.S. government had them removed, however, they were not taken back to their home country but sent to South Sudan, a country where they have no registered connection with.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published photos that revealed the men in chains at the hands and feet, sitting on a government plane and being escorted by U.S. authorities on the last stretch of its path.

It is said to have arrived in South Sudan a few minutes before midnight Eastern Time on a Friday, and this is being claimed by many observers as a legal and political milestone of the U.S. immigration and foreign policy.

Judicial Anarchy and a Panic Flight

The deportation follows weeks of court battles that left the men marooned in a U.S. military base in Djibouti, in particular Camp Lemonnier, where the detainees were known to conduct strategic military operations and, most recently, harbor controversial immigration prisoners.

U.S. officials characterized the camp as harsh, and there was worry about malaria, rocket attacks, and triple-digit temperatures.

Rights groups claimed that the men were being held in a “inhumane and dangerous” environment with no access to proper legal counsel and with no contact with the outside world.

Prior judicial decisions had prevented the deportations on constitutional grounds, citing that the action of sending non-citizens to third party countries where they formed no personal or cultural affinity with, and faced an unknown risk of, was punitive and deprived the individuals of due process.

However, on Thursday the Trump administration got a favorable ruling by the U.S Supreme Court, overturning a previous ban that would have forced the U.S government to give notices to detainees and provide them with an opportunity to receive a fair hearing before being deported to a third country.

The ruling paved the way to the deportations by DHS within hours.

READ ALSO: Mother Wins Right to Sue TikTok, Meta After Teen Son Dies Subway Surfing

A Doubtful Resort

The most contentious aspect of the case might be the destination of the men, which was South Sudan.

The U.S. State Department has issued multiple warnings advising Americans not to travel to South Sudan at all due to the armed conflict in the country, political instability and violence both in the country and towards the citizens of the United States.

In fact, human rights organizations claim that the deportation of citizens, particularly convicted criminals, to a weak, conflict zone-affected country would constitute not only cruel but also unusual punishment.

Trina Realmuto, a lawyer at the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, referred to the deportations as unconstitutional and retaliatory, saying the men had served their time and should not be exiled to a place unsafe, as she put it.

The U.S. government is well aware how perilous South Sudan is, she added. Why are we sending these men when we would not send our own people there?

U.S. Officials Now Claim Victory

Even with the backlash, officials in the administration of the time put the deportations in the context of national security as a win.

Tricia McLaughlin, an assistant secretary at DHS said, this Independence Day is another triumph over the security and safety of the American people.

A district judge cannot impose the United States national security and its foreign policy.

The Trump administration has been championing the decision to increase the length of deportation, especially of violent offenders who are not Americans.

Over the last few years, the U.S has been pressuring foreign governments, whether they have bad records on human rights or not, to take in deportees, who are not their citizens. The South Sudan deportations are the latest precedent on the same.

So what do you do?

We do not know what will happen to the men in South Sudan. Lawyers in the U.S. government have reported that the South Sudanese authorities promised the deportees social status of temporary immigration, yet it could not be established whether the men would be arrested, jailed, or given freedom.

South Sudan has not yet made a public declaration on the arrival of the deportees and human rights observers who have no access to determine safety or conditions of the men after their arrival.

In the U.S., the legal struggle seems to be done at least temporarily.

On Friday, a brief stay of the deportations was imposed by Judge Randolph Moss in Washington, D.C. with concerns raised that there was a potential of harm.

But he soon dismissed the case had to be sent back to Judge Brian Murphy in Massachusetts, who had originally attempted to stop the deportations.

Murphy then, with ill grace, gave them permission to do so, on the ground that he was bound by the decision of the Supreme Court.

It is not what I think is right or moral, Murphy allegedly told. It is about what the supreme court of the land has decreed.

On his part, Judge Moss said that the result was highly troubling to him as even those that were found guilty of committing horrible crimes should not be subjected to unwarranted pain, suffering, or torture after their sentence.

A Perilous Precedent?

The consequences of such deportations are still questionable in the long term. Civil rights activists worry this will establish a terrible precedent, and that the U.S. can now deport anyone to just about any country willing to accept them, even without an established legal or familial relationship.

READ ALSO: Mother Wins Right to Sue TikTok, Meta After Teen Son Dies Subway Surfing

Opponents fear that the practices have the potential to erode international asylum conventions, human rights guarantees, and the fundamentals of due process all in the interest of political image and policy implementation.

At this moment, eight men are in an unfamiliar land that was never home, in one of the most unstable regions of the world with no idea of what is in store next.